Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 10:44 pm Post subject:
What about the filters?Improvement for next OS

i think that the classic & Nord filters are not on point & don't have a good sound at all,poorly exploitin' the dsp power.
Folks what do you think Clavia's editor programmers can improve in thoses modules?
I fiind that the editor & G2 is not at his full effect,it lacks some point in th use of the dsp power,I hope they gonna improve the sound quality of certain module cos they sounds real thin & bad.
Just my opinion. _________________Fuck the friendship,I ride alone

As far as the basic filter sound goes, it is very clean, but I like that because you can add distortion but you can’t take it out. The function of a filter by definition, is to remove part of whatever is put into it. Except for (high) resonance, a ‘perfect’ filter would add nothing to the sound and by that definition, Clavia’s filters are more perfect than most. There is always something wrong with perfection though.
The human ear loves some types of distortion. I don’t think there is much difference between filtering a clean signal with a fat/warm analogish filter, and applying fat/warm distortion to that signal, then filtering the result with a clean filter. Or maybe the distortion should be applied to the output of the filter and/or in a feedback loop. The Clip, Overdrive, Saturate and Exp Shape modules, combined with some eq, provide a huge range of different distortion possibilities, but I haven’t done a lot of experimenting as yet. Mainly because there are so many other interesting things to explore on the G2. I’m also not the biggest fan of analogue filters, IMHO many of them are overrated.

I've seen and participated in many discussions about this. I have a Moog Modular system and those are the filters that seem to be considered the golden standard for filters. I love the Moog, but I have never thought the NM filters are bad, I think they sound fine. So, I tried to make some demo tracks to compare them. I found this to be very difficult.

First, I was going to just record a sweeping LPF on a single sawtooth at 500 hz. Yikes, the Moog sawtooth is very different from the Nord. It has lots of distortion. The filters are different too, the way they break up when regeneration is cranked up. Finally, I had some tracks that really proved nothing, (you can carefully adjust things so that the NM and the Moog sound nearly identical) and then converted the tracks to mp3s to upload on the web. That was the end of it, the mp3 conversion put is so much distortion that the comparisons were totally meaningless.

So, I gave up.

About a month ago, a friend and memeber here, Zynthetix, came over to my studio. He was interested in getting NM at the time and was interested in comparing it to the Moog. Hehe, my first demonstartion was to listen to the moog with no input to the filter. There is a ton of hum, hiss, and leakage from the synths 7 oscillators. The filter still sounds great, but it certainly is not clean. Zynth, went right out an bought a new G2, by the way.

The G2 is very clean, and I think the filters and other signal processing modules are very accurate in what they do. If the sound is "thin and bad", then change the patch. If you want a fat sound to come out of the filter, then you better put a really dirty rich sound into it.

I have another complaint about the G2 filters, but they aren't about the sound. There is no bandpass filter where you can modulate the bandwidth. This is not a show stopper, because you can create a patch where you make your own band pass filter using a high pass and a low pass in series. You can combine the control inputs in such a way as to control the bandwidth. It's like a big puzzle; you can figure it out and get it to do whatever you want. I think that's the way to look at the Nord, or any other patchable synth.

"The G2 is very clean, and I think the filters and other signal processing modules are very accurate in what they do. If the sound is "thin and bad", then change the patch. If you want a fat sound to come out of the filter, then you better put a really dirty rich sound into it."

Exactly. That's what I like about the G2. It puts the responsibility of sound in your hands. Which is hard at the beginning, because that means you have to learn new stuff in order to implement what you are looking for, soundwise. But once you've done your homework, the fun part begins, because now a) you understand how a particular sonic character is achieved and b) since you modeled it yourself, you are now in control of it. The learning curve therefore is way more steep, but the results are far more rewarding.

So, if you find the filters "thin-sounding", learn to make them fatter. The G2 offers way enough possibilities to do this. Experiment, invent, ask questions. That's what I'm doing all the time.

But once you've done your homework, the fun part begins, because now a) you understand how a particular sonic character is achieved and b) since you modeled it yourself, you are now in control of it. The learning curve therefore is way more steep, but the results are far more rewarding.

That is very well said and definitely true!

I guess the good news is that there is a whole lifetime to make music. Well, deo volente. So, why not take time to explore and learn, it is inspiring and can be great fun as well.

Just a patch to illustrate some of the points. Not sure if I could call this filter 'fat', maybe just 'big boned'.
I have used the 'Filter Lowpass' module which has no resonance control, this is not a problem because I take the output of the filter through an inverter and overdrive (distortion) module, and feed it back into two of the mixer inputs (to get up to 2 times gain). The resonance produced this way is a lot less well behaved than on the other filters and has a lot of variation depending on the settings of the overdrive.
Of cause, as Howard pointed out, it can't sound fat without a lot of high harmonic content at the input. I have used two paired oscillators (paired because the squares are the same frequency as the sawtooths, in a digital system that means they are locked like a square from the same oscillator). The idea is to add a little square to 'simulate' 2nd harmonic distortion of the sawtooth. You could use two oscillators with an overdrive each but that would cost more dsp. The input is intended for bass sounds.
The filter is set to a 30dB slope which is higher than most analogue filters can do, try changing to lower slopes which will allow more harmonics through at the same roll off frequency.
Use the mod wheel to adjust the filter frequency to taste for each variation.

Here is a classic pad made with the LP. The filter is made resonant with the same trick as Ian uses, inverted feedback. Asymmetrical distortion is added in the resonance feedback patch by using a classic VCA trick: applying a little of the VCA input signal to a fixed control voltage that by default sets the VCA to unity gain. The polarity of that added signal is important, normally it needs to be inverted. But as it receives this signal after the inverter that is used for the resonance feedback it is all pretty dsp cheap and neat. On unison sounds the asymmetric distortion cannot be really deep, though on a single sawtooth it can be much deeper. But with too much VCA modulation the filter will clamp, so don't overdo. It is best if the effect is just subtle, just like it would be on a quality analog filter.

Imho this is a good one to study, as it is almost a classbook example on how to build an analog sounding DIY filter. And it is cheap enough to do a five VCO sound with fifteen voices plus reverb on an unexpanded G2.

I concur that the "fatness" is not the filters themselves but how they're used. That patch is a good example. And by the way, those Moog filters were very nice despite the extra signal noise from the osc.

This is why I really love the NM. You guys just taught an old dog a new trick! While some patches are so complicated that they are impossible to understand, these are great for demonstrating an idea. Thanks... I love the way Rob's patch blows up when you turn up the "limit" control...

thx folks for answering,like said before I started learning with simple patch to really used & understand fuction of level,switch & logic modules.
props._________________Fuck the friendship,I ride alone

Thats a great sounding filter Rob, early Roland or maybe ARP (except the blow up bit, thats PAIA ).
Seriously, thanks for that trick with the VCA (are all these old tricks assembled in one place anywhere?).
It would never have occurred to me to modulate the double saw with a saw lfo like that. With the lfo rate/keyboard morph, you get to break up the (perceived) beat relationship because the lfo rate tracks differently from the actual detuned oscillator beating. Just like a real analogue polysynth with no cost at all in DSP cycles.

I'm looking forward to what you and hopefully others come up with. It would be nice to build a collection here of people's attempts. That way we can build and share some nice expertise amongst us. It is especially the 'flaws' that can lead to interesting new sounds.

Anyway the LP filter lends itself well to be used as a single pole in all sorts of multipole filters. Ideas are to put some in series, detune the poles, create odd feedback paths, etc, etc. Mixing the outputs of the poles in certain amounts can create a lot of filter curves. There is an old article by Craig Anderton, its on the net as 'MIF.pdf', which describes what one can do with mixing the four poles of a standard 4-pole filter. Wholeheartedly recommended.

The Multimode in its allpass mode (BP output at 6dB setting) also offers interesting possibilities. Using them in parallel, carefully detune them and mixing their outputs with many times one output inverted creates very interesting 'elliptic' modes.

fyck!!!
where did u get all that knowledge about synthesis.
i wonder if ppl who used the modular,realize music or are just geek tweaker & sound design research scientist!
peace_________________Fuck the friendship,I ride alone

fyck!!!
where did u get all that knowledge about synthesis.
i wonder if ppl who used the modular,realize music or are just geek tweaker & sound design research scientist!
peace

What does a sculptor after years and years of sculpting know about the stone, the hammers and the chisel? Undoubtedly more than the average layman. Why should it be different with a musician/composer and sound synthesis?

Synthesis is just a tool and sound is material. The more one knows about the tools and materials used in the trade, the easier it is to make music with them. Why should musicians be the only group of artists that have absolutely no idea about what it is they're working with?

It is true that to play the violin one doesn't have to be able to build violins. With electronic music, especially the more experimental oriented electronic music (what this site is supposed to be about), it's a bit more complex, simply as there is not one electronicin to be learned and then you are an electronicist, like the violin and the violist. In a way people making electronic music do have to build their instrument themselves, though they name it studio or setup or rig or whatever. Instruments like the G2 are sort of a studio in a box, a concept pioneered by EMS with their VCS synths from way back, VCS standing for Voltage Controlled Studio. Working with this kind of instruments involves synthesis, and it is practically unavoidable to automatically pick up some synthesis abilities over the years, whether one wants it or not.

Why should there be a difference between pressing a button labeled 'record' and concocting one's own filter for some special musical purpose? Its true that for the latter one has to click a few more mouse buttons, but that's basically the only difference to me.

So you forgot one important group of modular users, those who make music and want to 'personalize' their music for some reason or another. That's when one needs to go modular and take all that comes along with it.
And this need to 'personalize' can only come from a creative reason. Somehow I think you know what I mean here.

So synthesis in practice is not at all a geek thing, instead its about how to get a good sound. Real geeks that think sound synthesis is something for them to freak out on probably never come as deep in it as musicians and composers will. Simply as they can never pass beyond the stage of 'theoretically perfect' digital implementations. And we all know those don't sound that good.

Maybe it is the general misconception that being an artist is simply a matter of adopting a certain lifestyle. Which is bull. The other saying that art is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration is closer to the truth.

Well, I can go on about this for a lóóng time. Still, if one has a need for it synthesis it can be a lot of fun and quite rewarding. One doesn't need to be a mathematician, its just a few basic principles, a lot of common sense, a good set of ears and an open mind. That's all it takes. And experience, which comes automatically over the years while making music with electronic means.

Why should musicians be the only group of artists that have absolutely no idea about what it is they're working with?

Man, I could hug you for that statement! I've been saying that to musician-friends of mine for years who think I'm just geeking when in synthesist-mode.

Quote:

So you forgot one important group of modular users, those who make music and want to 'personalize' their music for some reason or another. That's when one needs to go modular and take all that comes along with it.
And this need to 'personalize' can only come from a creative reason. Somehow I think you know what I mean here.

So synthesis in practice is not at all a geek thing, instead its about how to get a good sound.

Well said. I recognize myself there 100%.

I've been living a Dr.Jeckyll/Mr.Hyde-like existence for over 10 years. On the one hand, I've been playing jazz piano and keyboards professionally for years (live, studio and TV work) and also teach piano at the conservatory. On the other hand, I've been doing purely electronic (meaning: programmed) stuff too, for just as long. I've slowly got tired of this "split personality" and have been conducting a new approach to synthesizers for some time now: trying to make them as organic and musically expressive as acoustic instruments, in order to play them live. Spending hours at the piano every day (as my job demands) is helpful for this research.

After years of dissappointment with "hard wired" synth designs, I've finally found "home" with the G2. This machine feels right for my purposes. And I can't fathom how much I have already learned from it's eloquent, intelligent and incredibly knowledgeful user community. I'm very grateful for that and appreciate it very much!

If these are geeks, I like geeks.

Quote:

I'm looking forward to what you and hopefully others come up with. It would be nice to build a collection here of people's attempts. That way we can build and share some nice expertise amongst us. [...] Would be quite a fun project to start our own filter collection here.

Yes, I love that idea. I've actually already organized my G2 patch folders this way: there's a folder called "macros" which has sub-folders for filters, oscillators, and so on. Your nice filter is already filed there. Maybe Howard will like the idea of augmenting the patch library with such a "macro" department, where we could stockpile these things.

Now to mine: It's actually basically the same thing: a LPF with feedback. However, in my design, the resonance peak caused painfully aliasing artefacts at high cutoff frequencies. So I hooked up something that correlates the feedback gain to the filter frequency, attenuating it accordingly. This makes the resonance boom in the bass without killing your ears at higher freq's. Therefore, all filter controls have to be applied to the filter control mixer.

Maybe I did something wrong, but the feedback loop needed a good boosting of 12 dB in order to make the resonance strong enough.

It sounds quite similar to the "ClassicFilter", but sounds dryer and punchier in direct A/B comparison. I like it for bass and P-Funk style leads.

Quote:

Anyway the LP filter lends itself well to be used as a single pole in all sorts of multipole filters. Ideas are to put some in series, detune the poles, create odd feedback paths, etc, etc. Mixing the outputs of the poles in certain amounts can create a lot of filter curves.

Yes. I owned a JoMoX SunSyn once, which has a nifty 4 pole design: You can adjust the cutoffs of each pole, as well as toggle between LP and HP characteristics. An unusual, interesting filter. I'll eventually try to build it. A nice "rainy sunday afternoon" project.

(The SunSyn would be a analog dream synth... If the OS would work. It's still not finished, AFAIK )

Here's another one, the 'non-linearity' in this one is based on a paper by Stilson & Smith, modelling the Moog ladder filter. It is a 3rd order polynomial or something. Strait forward formula, X' = X - X*X*X*(1/6). I have put it between the mixer and filter rather than in the negative feedback path, so it gets a chance to modify the input as well.
I also tried the chaining 4 1 pole filters rather than a single 4 pole (24dB) idea. A little detuning of the sections leads to some highreso weirdness (see var3, gets more pronounced higher up). Otherwise, does sound subtly different from a single section. The result does not sound like a Moog ladder filter to my ears (only using one small part of the algorithm).

Do you use the dedicated (stereo) compressor module or do you patch one up yourself (comparator, envelope and VCA)?

I tend to use the factory modules unless they are missing something I need. Early experiments showed me that, in most cases, Clavia's modules are quite efficient.

Here is another 'analogue' filter patch. It is the result of trying Rob's suggestion of using the FltMulti allpass trick. The resonance is very dirty and unique sounding, without the aid of specific non-linear shaping. This shows just how 'analogue like' the basic Nord filters really are. The `analogueness` of the overall patch is helped along subtly with a trick from elsewhere in this forum. The voice number out of the status module selects a voice de-tune control for the oscillators and filters. Adjusting levels/inverting in the FilterMix gives more variety. My personal favourite, variation 5, is more bandpass than lowpass.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.